Intelligent design not so intellignt.

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by Free Thinker, May 14, 2010.

  1. Creationist bible thumpers have long sought to have schools stop teaching evolution and instead teach that the christian god made man just as described in the bible. having failed at that they changed tactics and tried to get schools to teach that the christian god "designed" humans just as they are today. so called intelligent design.
    this paper points out some of the unintelligent design found in the human genome. if you believe intelligent design you have to ask yourself. why would a self described perfect god create a flawed product?

    Footprints of nonsentient design inside the human genome
    John C. Avise1
    + Author Affiliations

    Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Irvine, CA, 92697
    Abstract
    Intelligent design (ID)—the latest incarnation of religious creationism—posits that complex biological features did not accrue gradually via natural evolutionary forces but, instead, were crafted ex nihilo by a cognitive agent. Yet, many complex biological traits are gratuitously complicated, function poorly, and debilitate their bearers. Furthermore, such dysfunctional traits abound not only in the phenotypes but inside the genomes of eukaryotic species. Here, I highlight several outlandish features of the human genome that defy notions of ID by a caring cognitive agent. These range from de novo mutational glitches that collectively kill or maim countless individuals (including embryos and fetuses) to pervasive architectural flaws (including pseudogenes, parasitic mobile elements, and needlessly baroque regulatory pathways) that are endogenous in every human genome. Gross imperfection at the molecular level presents a conundrum for the traditional paradigms of natural theology as well as for recent assertions of ID, but it is consistent with the notion of nonsentient contrivance by evolutionary forces. In this important philosophical sense, the science of evolutionary genetics should rightly be viewed as an ally (not an adversary) of mainstream religions because it helps the latter to escape the profound theological enigmas posed by notions of ID.
    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/05/05/0914609107.full.pdf+html
     
  2. teaching "intelligent" design puts squirrels in kids heads. when the irrational becomes acceptable thinking we are all truly doomed. there must be rules of evidence. there must be rules to REASONING. does anyone here want to regress back to the DARK days of witch burning or worshiping the king of the universe ZEUS?

    Please think clearly! :eek:
     
  3. Wallet

    Wallet

    "We have always underestimated cells. … The entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines. … Why do we call the large protein assemblies that underlie cell function protein machines? Precisely because, like machines invented by humans to deal efficiently with the macroscopic world, these protein assemblies contain highly coordinated moving parts."
    (Bruce Alberts, "The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines: Preparing the Next Generation of Molecular Biologists," Cell, 92(February 8, 1998): 291)

    Even Dawkins stated that biology gave the appearance of design....... Hummm.......looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, must be a duck except I don't believe in ducks so it must be something else.
     
  4. "give the appearance" is not proof no matter who says it.

    nothing wrong at all letting your imagination run wild, brainstorming is a great source of new ideas.

    but when you start believing your fantasy without testing against the rulz..

    your a schizo, whether you are certified or not :eek:
     
  5. sounds like a little education is in order. here is a lecture by a christian cell biologist. it talks about cell design.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg
     
  6. isn't the bottom line MAKE YOUR ARGUMENT?!

    if your THEIST argument is more compelling, will be accepted.

    but make YOUR argument.

    the chips will fall will they may.

    but word of warning, "i feel", "i believe", "i faith" has no WEIGHT of evidence :D

    we want FACTS here. compelling reason! make ME believe :D
     
  7. Wallet

    Wallet

    If the sky's blue do I have to prove it's blue? Top scientists will admit that biology appears designed, but then go to great lengths to challenge that rational, based in a belief of evolution. Where the simple answer would be to look for supporting evidence to the obvious.

    http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1176

    :taken from the above link.

    FAQ: Aren't "biological machines" too different from human-made machines to be considered examples of designed machines?
    The Short Answer: No, biological machines provide a good analogy to human designed machines for us to consider both designed. Both do work, and both are often build upon similar designs.


    The Long Answer:

    From physics, the definition of work is W=F*d (F=force, d=distance). Based on this understanding, the bacterial flagellum as well as cilia perform work: they exert a force and thereby provide mobility. In the literal sense of the word, these are machines: they exert a force over a distance, which is work. Additionally, these machines have many specialized parts that are will integrated with each other, all of which are required to perform the function of mobility (this gets at the idea of IC). This is very much in line with the concept of a machine. Therefore, we suggest that these are true examples of machines in biology and not just mere collections of molecules. These function exactly as man-made machines.

    The similarity between cellular machines and human machines is well-reflected in this quote from Bruce Alberts, president of the National Academy of Sciences:
    "We have always underestimated cells. … The entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines. … Why do we call the large protein assemblies that underlie cell function protein machines? Precisely because, like machines invented by humans to deal efficiently with the macroscopic world, these protein assemblies contain highly coordinated moving parts."
    (Bruce Alberts, "The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines: Preparing the Next Generation of Molecular Biologists," Cell, 92(February 8, 1998): 291)
    It should also be noted that intelligent design theorists are not the only ones who see 'machine' analogies in the microbiological realm. The bacterial flagellum and the rotary engine provide an excellent comparison of a human-designed machine and a designed machine in biology. As one researcher wrote, "More so than other motors, the flagellum resembles a machine designed by a human" (David J. DeRosier, Cell 93, 17 (1998)). The mainstream literature is rife with references to "molecular machines," (visit the PubMed Search Engine and search for "molecular machines") and rotary motor enthusiasts, unrelated to intelligent design, have found that "Nature Always Does it First" because of the similarities between the bacterial flagellum and the non-Wankel rotary engine.

    The intricacy of the bacterial flagellum dispels any notions that they are not like carefully designed machines:
    "The eukaryotic flagellum is a complex biochemical machine that moves cells or moves materials over the surface of cells, such as in the mammalian esophagus, oviduct or in protozoa. It is composed of over 250 polypeptides that must be assembled into a number of different structures and each structure must be attached with an exact periodicity along the microtubules. Once the flagellum is assembled, each of the components must act in concert and in three dimensions to produce a complex waveform. This review provides an outline of the composition and function of the different structures found in the flagella of Chlamydomonas."
    (Susan Dutcher, "Flagellar assembly in two hundred and fifty easy-to-follow steps" Trends in Genetics, Volume 11, Issue 10)
     
  8. do you think it important to know why its blue?
     
  9. yes.

    you must define "blue" and "sky" then prove sky= blue.

    if i say the sky is gone would you make me prove it before you accepted it?
     
  10. Wallet

    Wallet

    I understand why it's blue and that it's appearance supports the former.

    Please explain the bacterial flagellum, as being random
     
    #10     May 14, 2010